Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

The latest possible time was when Amanda confessed to being at the scene of the murder, having led Patrick there, and then witnessing Patrick "having sex and killing Mez" whilst she covered her ears from Mez' bloodcurdling scream.

At this point, the interview was terminated.

What time was that exactly? How long had she been in the interrogation room before that? What was being said in the room before that?

So, according to you, at the time Raffaele is being pressed to take away Amanda's alibi, she is not a suspect? At the time the police in Amanda's interrogation room acquire this information and confront her with it, she is not a suspect? And nothing about Amanda's behaviour or any other developments between the 2nd and 5th of November caused the police and prosecutor to regard her as a suspect? And, more than that, you don't believe either, that anything she did between the discovery of the body and the interrogation of the 5th, was suspicious?

According to you, it seems, the whole thing was a complete surprise to everybody when she just blurted out an incriminating verbal statement completely voluntarily and spontaneously, to the extent, presumably that the police officers present all said or at least thought, the equivalent of "My, my! I never saw that coming! This sweet Anerican kid caught up in something like this! We are truly shocked!" But, again, how long was it between Amanda walking in at the behest of the police to the interrogation room and her making the statement verbally - and what was going on beforehand?

And tell me, at the moment the police handed her the 1:45 statement to sign, was she a suspect then? Well, according to you she was. Why is a suspect being given a statement to sign without first consulting with a lawyer?

 

[zotz]

Not even a glass breakage expert would be able to get a 12inch 9kg boulder through the gap of a half-closed shutter, as police found it.

Why not? They couldn't even be bothered to photograph the so-called glass on top of the clothes. They let Filomena disturb the crime scene. Why were the investigators so lazy and incompetent?

..."boulder"?!?!?!

 

[Vixen]

Yes. You make some very strong points.

They don't seem to be comfortable with or handle well, real evidence. Perhaps this preference for confession in a legal setting has its roots in Catholic purification rites:

"The basic requirement for a good confession is to have the intention of returning to God like the "prodigal son" and to acknowledge our sins with true sorrow before the priest."

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/confession.php

...Or even the film, Dead Man Walking.

 

[Kauffer]

Conversely, police do not have an obligation to caution a perp determined to make a voluntary statement.

The cannot use such a genuine voluntary statement against its maker unless a suspect later adopts it after having taken the advice of counsel - not for anything.

But, interestingly, how would the police go about demonstrating that a statement made in these circumstances was, in fact, voluntary, if later, the person making it claimed that it was not?

 

[Vixen]

I actually think there's some real traction to this suggestion. Bear in mind that the inquisitorial system (and its associated over-reliance on confessions etc) has its deepest and most pervasive roots in Southern European countries such as Italy, France, Spain and Portugal. And these are all countries with deep (and dark) Catholic traditions. More enlightened countries in Central and Northern Europe have long since embraced a more scientific and evidence-based approach to criminal justice.

The twelve-man jury system originated in Sweden.

Came to England via Danelaw.

 

[Desert Fox]

Conversely, police do not have an obligation to caution a perp determined to make a voluntary statement.

Do you accept that the police all over the world have managed to get false confessions from innocent defendants all over the world including developed nations.

 

[Kauffer]

The twelve-man jury system originated in Sweden.

Came to England via Danelaw.

Isn't Wikipedia great!?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Gosh! Monday, 20th July 2015!

Nothing appearing on ECHR radar and zip from the Italian Supreme Court motivations report, still there is the nested iteration of this thread, I have skipped through a number of pages and yeah, same ol’, same ol’.

Hopefully something new to discuss in the fall (2015), until then (hopefully).

 

[Vixen]

For God's sake.....

1 gram = 1,000,000,000,000 picograms.

You're displaying your mathematical ignorance.

(As you are when you assert that inflation ought to be factored in to historic foreign exchange rates. That one made me literally lol )

To compare it to today's value, yes, you would.

0.0000002925 g = 292000 picograms.

 

[Bill Williams]

Gosh! Monday, 20th July 2015!

Nothing appearing on ECHR radar and zip from the Italian Supreme Court motivations report, still there is the nested iteration of this thread, I have skipped through a number of pages and yeah, same ol’, same ol’.

Hopefully something new to discuss in the fall (2015), until then (hopefully).

I'm with you, CoulsdonUK. Same ol' same ol', and it will be a mercy to have the motivations report out.

Welcome back. Are you going to bring any of your own "same ol'", or did the March 2015 exoneration change things for you?

 

[Methos]

You have to factor in inflation, say, (1.05)^12.

No, not really, the exchange rate has been fixed back then. There are a lot of people in Germany still arguing about how the Euro made things more expensive (i.e. the Euro being a TEuro) using the rough 2:1 exchange rate when claiming "...but this would be xxx,xx Deutsche Mark" (the official excange rate was 1,95583 DEM for 1 Euro )

It still is a lot of money in any currency, and I wonder if presenting that bill to Knox and Sollecito in 2011 - with the appeal ongoing - was part of the psychological war going on alongside the judicial proceedings? Just like honoring the police officers for their:

evidenziando elevate capacità professionali, acume investigativo e non comune determinazione operativa, conducevano una complessa indagine di polizia giudiziaria che si concludeva con l'arresto degli autori dell'omicidio di una studentessa inglese consumato nel centro storico di Perugia.

as La Nazione reported in May 2011?

 

[Vixen]

Isn't Wikipedia great!?

Not wikipedia at all.

The word "land" is derived from the Swedish "lund". To form a court of law cum government, twelve of the land elders came to decisions.

 

[LondonJohn]

To compare it to today's value, yes, you would.

No, you wouldn't. You're way out of your depth trying to discuss macroeconomic concepts. Real and nominal concepts only apply to absolute amounts, not to exchange rates between currencies. Stop embarrassing yourself.

We were talking about micrograms cubed.

No. We weren't. And what the hell are you talking about with "cubed"? You said this:

"Hi Grinder, if it was 0.0000002925 grams, then it would be 0.002925 pico grams. (1gm = 1,000 picograms.)"

(If you didn't already know (which you clearly didn't), the concept of "masses cubed" is not....erm.... recognised within the scientific community. Again, it demonstrates embarrassing scientific ignorance and illiteracy)

 

[Vixen]

No, not really, the exchange rate has been fixed back then. There are a lot of people in Germany still arguing about how the Euro made things more expensive (i.e. the Euro being a TEuro) using the rough 2:1 exchange rate when claiming "...but this would be xxx,xx Deutsche Mark" (the official excange rate was 1,95583 DEM for 1 Euro )

It still is a lot of money in any currency, and I wonder if presenting that bill to Knox and Sollecito in 2011 - with the appeal ongoing - was part of the psychological war going on alongside the judicial proceedings? Just like honoring the police officers for their: as La Nazione reported in May 2011?

I see, you are using exchange rates adjusted to today's Present Value?

Something that translated to €100,000 in 2002 at 2002 f/x rates needs to be adjusted by compound inflation to calculate the current value (or even interest as if that sum had been invested) were you to claim it from a court today.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, not really, the exchange rate has been fixed back then. There are a lot of people in Germany still arguing about how the Euro made things more expensive (i.e. the Euro being a TEuro) using the rough 2:1 exchange rate when claiming "...but this would be xxx,xx Deutsche Mark" (the official excange rate was 1,95583 DEM for 1 Euro )

It still is a lot of money in any currency, and I wonder if presenting that bill to Knox and Sollecito in 2011 - with the appeal ongoing - was part of the psychological war going on alongside the judicial proceedings? Just like honoring the police officers for their: as La Nazione reported in May 2011?

Exactly. Changes in exchange rates purely reflect the underlying economies of the two entities over that time period. They are a factor of myriad macroeconomic effects, of which inflation is one - but inflation applies on both sides of the model.

To use an example to illustrate just how crassly wrong Vixen was: The USD/GBP ($/£) rate in July 2009 happens to be almost exactly the same as it is in July 2015 - 1.55. But by Vixen's bogus "reasoning", we would have had to apply a compounded inflation rate (1.04^5 maybe) to the 1.55 rate of 2009 to arrive at the "correct" rate for 2015. Laughably wrong.

 

[Vixen]

What time was that exactly? How long had she been in the interrogation room before that? What was being said in the room before that?

So, according to you, at the time Raffaele is being pressed to take away Amanda's alibi, she is not a suspect? At the time the police in Amanda's interrogation room acquire this information and confront her with it, she is not a suspect? And nothing about Amanda's behaviour or any other developments between the 2nd and 5th of November caused the police and prosecutor to regard her as a suspect? And, more than that, you don't believe either, that anything she did between the discovery of the body and the interrogation of the 5th, was suspicious?

According to you, it seems, the whole thing was a complete surprise to everybody when she just blurted out an incriminating verbal statement completely voluntarily and spontaneously, to the extent, presumably that the police officers present all said or at least thought, the equivalent of "My, my! I never saw that coming! This sweet Anerican kid caught up in something like this! We are truly shocked!" But, again, how long was it between Amanda walking in at the behest of the police to the interrogation room and her making the statement verbally - and what was going on beforehand?

And tell me, at the moment the police handed her the 1:45 statement to sign, was she a suspect then? Well, according to you she was. Why is a suspect being given a statement to sign without first consulting with a lawyer?

Amanda brought up Patrick of her own volition. She is convicted of a serious felony that carries up to six years imprisonment.

Amanda was chomping at the bit to frame Patrick, even to the extent of privately composing yet another spontaneous statement affirming she saw Patrick in "blurry flashing images". She forcibly made Det Ficarra take it, saying it was a "gift".


IOW She thought the police would be bowled over with gratitude!!! LOL

 

[MichaelB]

Not even a glass breakage expert would be able to get a 12inch 9kg boulder through the gap of a half-closed shutter, as police found it.

9kg's huh? Did you read that in a book?

 

[Vixen]

The cannot use such a genuine voluntary statement against its maker unless a suspect later adopts it after having taken the advice of counsel - not for anything.

But, interestingly, how would the police go about demonstrating that a statement made in these circumstances was, in fact, voluntary, if later, the person making it claimed that it was not?

The fact that a court of law (in Italy) cannot use a voluntary witness statement against the witness, Amanda's two voluntary WSS incriminating Patrick were barred from the criminal proceedings.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda brought up Patrick of her own volition. She is convicted of a serious felony that carries up to six years imprisonment.

Amanda was chomping at the bit to frame Patrick, even to the extent of privately composing yet another spontaneous statement affirming she saw Patrick in "blurry flashing images". She forcibly made Det Ficarra take it, saying it was a "gift".

IOW She thought the police would be bowled over with gratitude!!! LOL

The blatant lies are highlighted. There were no spontaneous statements during the interrogation.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I'm with you, CoulsdonUK. Same ol' same ol', and it will be a mercy to have the motivations report out.

Welcome back. Are you going to bring any of your own "same ol'", or did the March 2015 exoneration change things for you?

Bill!

I am still on lockdown from Mrs C! She is down in Spain with the girls for a week, so who knows I might post again. However, Vixen is keeping folk on their toes, condemnation of Vixens posts whilst feeling the need to respond is wonderful.

Like everyone here, I am impatient to read “legal” decision for the verdict way back in March and as for this slow motion “ECHR slam dunk” case law “woolly mammoth; howzat!, well, erm well!?

I am wondering; is the ECHR waiting for the Italian Supreme Court motivations report Or (nested Or) is the Italian Supreme Court waiting for ECHR.

Dear I say 2017!!